Population Growth and Decline

[Ernie]

Sometimes I hear that Muslims are going to take over the earth just by having larger families.
Sometimes the same is said about Plain Anabaptists, somewhat in jest.

This evening, I wondered if Republicans tend to have larger families. Sure enough.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conserva ... -advantage

[Josh]

Sometimes I hear that Muslims are going to take over the earth just by having larger families.
Sometimes the same is said about Plain Anabaptists, somewhat in jest.

This evening, I wondered if Republicans tend to have larger families. Sure enough.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conserva ... -advantage

If present trends continue, the world will be composed of Swartzies, Hasidic Jews, Nigeriens, and Congolese.

[Ken]

Sometimes I hear that Muslims are going to take over the earth just by having larger families.
Sometimes the same is said about Plain Anabaptists, somewhat in jest.

This evening, I wondered if Republicans tend to have larger families. Sure enough.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conserva ... -advantage

If present trends continue, the world will be composed of Swartzies, Hasidic Jews, Nigeriens, and Congolese.

One thing we can be sure of. Present trends won't continue. They haven't for any other population in human history that had periods of exponential growth rates. And they won't for these either.

[RZehr]

Finally, this conservative fertility advantage probably will not give conservatives some inevitable long-term political edge. Fertility rates are falling for conservatives just as much as liberals. Given the size of the fertility differential between conservatives and liberals, it doesn’t actually take a large amount of ideology switching to offset this higher birth rate. Thus, while conservatives may wish that their fertility advantage could afford a durable political majority, that hope is probably just as fleeting as the now-silly-sounding claims of progressives a decade ago that immigration would create a durable Democratic majority. That’s because, at least right now, conservative parents have not been sufficiently successful in keeping their kids in the fold.

[Ernie]

Finally, this conservative fertility advantage probably will not give conservatives some inevitable long-term political edge. Fertility rates are falling for conservatives just as much as liberals. Given the size of the fertility differential between conservatives and liberals, it doesn’t actually take a large amount of ideology switching to offset this higher birth rate. Thus, while conservatives may wish that their fertility advantage could afford a durable political majority, that hope is probably just as fleeting as the now-silly-sounding claims of progressives a decade ago that immigration would create a durable Democratic majority. That’s because, at least right now, conservative parents have not been sufficiently successful in keeping their kids in the fold.

Yes.
But even though Conservatives might not give themselves a long-term political edge, I think the fertility rate is what makes it so that they can keep electing a President about the half time and have control of both houses of congress about half the time. Otherwise, I think they would be in power less of the time.

[Ken]

Finally, this conservative fertility advantage probably will not give conservatives some inevitable long-term political edge. Fertility rates are falling for conservatives just as much as liberals. Given the size of the fertility differential between conservatives and liberals, it doesn’t actually take a large amount of ideology switching to offset this higher birth rate. Thus, while conservatives may wish that their fertility advantage could afford a durable political majority, that hope is probably just as fleeting as the now-silly-sounding claims of progressives a decade ago that immigration would create a durable Democratic majority. That’s because, at least right now, conservative parents have not been sufficiently successful in keeping their kids in the fold.

Yes.
But even though Conservatives might not give themselves a long-term political edge, I think the fertility rate is what makes it so that they can keep electing a President about the half time and have control of both houses of congress about half the time. Otherwise, I think they would be in power less of the time.

I don't think politics is demographically driven. I think it is issue driven. The two parties basically capture enough issues for themselves to reach rough parity. If it were demographics then we would not see such dramatic change in political allegiances from generation to generation. All one has to do is look at the 2020 electoral map and compare it to the 1976 electoral map to see what I'm talking about. In 1976 the west coast was solidly Republican while the south and states like West Virginia were solidly Democratic. In two generations that completely flipped. That change didn't come about from conservatives having more babies. It came about because political allegiances and issues shifted.

The following maps both show Democratic electoral victories 44 years apart but with nearly opposite demographics.

Probably the biggest determinate of politics today isn't family demographics but the urban/rural split. For example, Oregon is a blue state and Idaho is a red state mostly because Portland is 4x larger than Boise. Swap the size of the two cities and Oregon turns red while Idaho turns blue. One can do the same thing with Alabama and Georgia. Or Colorado and Wyoming. I would predict that the increasing urbanization of America will have far greater effects on politics than the family size of conservatives.

[Ernie]

In two generations that completely flipped. That change didn't come about from conservatives having more babies. It came about because political allegiances and issues shifted.

I get your point but my comment was more about the 21st century. Democrats have had the popular vote for most of the 21st century, but that doesn't translate into them being in control of Congress and the White House most of the time.

[Ken]

In two generations that completely flipped. That change didn't come about from conservatives having more babies. It came about because political allegiances and issues shifted.

I get your point but my comment was more about the 21st century. Democrats have had the popular vote for most of the 21st century, but that doesn't translate into them being in control of Congress and the White House most of the time.

Sure. But that is the result of the fact that we don't have a true democracy. The electoral college makes it possible to lose an election and still win the presidency which has happened twice in the past several decades and may well happen again this year. I don't think anyone believes Trump will win the popular vote even if he manages to squeak out an electoral college victory. And the Senate is similar if not worse in that Wyoming with 86-times less population than California gets the same number of Senators. Finally gerrymandering and geography means there are few truly competitive House seats around the country.

But my larger point is that the two parties basically continue to shift in order to try to capture 51% which is a continually difficult task because if you shift one direction to gain votes you lose them in the other direction. No party will ever have a 60% or 70% majority for that reason.

[ohio jones]

The electoral college makes it possible to lose an election and still win the presidency ...

No it doesn't; it's entirely necessary to win the election in order to win the presidency. The election is decided by the electors, not directly by popular vote. But I think you know that.

It's a feature, not a bug.

And it's also off topic.

[Ken]

The electoral college makes it possible to lose an election and still win the presidency ...

No it doesn't; it's entirely necessary to win the election in order to win the presidency. The election is decided by the electors, not directly by popular vote. But I think you know that.

It's a feature, not a bug.

And it's also off topic.

You knew exactly what I meant. And that feature was put there in part to defend slavery. It was the mechanism that gave the famous 3/5ths compromise its meaning (along with apportionment of seats in the House). Otherwise there would be no reason at all to count slaves with any 5ths if they weren't voting anyway.

It is also relevant to the discussion of conservative population growth because conservatives and liberals are not distributed evenly across the US within or between states. Which is why we can have a candidate win the electoral college while losing the popular vote. The main reason why conservatives hold so much power within the US government (Congress, Supreme Court, and possibly the presidency) is because political ideology is not distributed evenly and that is amplified by the electoral college.